Contact with Young Adults with Disability Led to a Positive Change in Attitudes toward Disability among Physiotherapy Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether contact over 8 weeks with a person with disability benefits physiotherapy students' attitudes toward disability and their development of professional behaviours and skills. METHODS: Sixteen adults with Down syndrome were matched with 16 physiotherapy students (13 women, 3 men; mean age 22.5 [SD 3.0] years) and randomized to either an 8-week, twice-weekly walking programme or an 8-week, once-weekly social activities programme. Students completed the Interaction with Disabled Persons scale, the Community Living Attitudes scale, and the Barriers to Exercise scale and rated their competency in professional behaviours and skills. RESULTS: There were no differences between the groups for any outcome. Across both groups, students showed positive changes in attitudes toward disability, self-ratings of professional behaviours, and confidence in working with people with disability. CONCLUSIONS: After an 8-week programme, physiotherapy students reported being more comfortable with and having more confidence in working with people with disability. These data support the idea that contact with people with disability in community settings has positive benefits for physiotherapy students, regardless of the content of the experience.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".